/lit/ - Literature

>anything from rebbit
>worth a damn
I'm not even a philosophizer, and I know the answer to that question.

>>3867222
I'm trying to be open-minded. And there are some quality subreddits.

what are you interested in getting out of philosophy

>>3867237
Quite a bit. I'd like to learn about philosophy of language, ethics, aesthetics, philosophy of science, and, looking at the reddit wiki, philosophy of cognitive science. Narrowed down a bit more, the first three I listed are what most interest me.

>>3867221
Start with Kenny's History of Western Philosophy. Work from there on the things you want to know more about.
Also, historyofphilosophy.net

It lacks books about pragmatics, that's an important part of philosophy of language.

Learn about concepts of the souls.Descart Dualism, materialism, solopsism. determinism, fatalism. focus mostly on existentialism as that has some of the greatest minds. ethics are eh, focus more on logic.

dont go near political philosophy. it's all shit and a waste of time.

once you really understand logic, fallacies, logic loops, occams razor (philosophical proofs) , then go on to the hard stuff like Phenomenology.

You also need to read philosophy slowly.

Yeah, it's not a terrible list, though ctrl+f'ing 'Wittgenstein' provides 0 results.

So it's by no means a 'complete' list. You're better off starting with Kenny's New History of Western Philosophy, and then coming back with a more specific question about how to get into a certain area of philosophy or philosopher themselves, I think.

1. Read some general introduction text; w/e sounds good to you e.g. Rustle, Magee etc.

2. Pick up some work that interests you. Read it.

3. The work will probably reference some other philosophers that peeks your interests.

4. repeat step 2.

Also, stop being an inauthentic faggot letting others dictate what you read.

>>3867221

I'm not an expert though, but

>Philosophy experts of /lit/ (if there are any), I'd like to start studying philosophy and was wondering if reddit's wiki (http://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/readinglist)) is a proper guide.

Why not?


>Narrowed down a bit more, the first three I listed are what most interest me...
>language, ethics, aesthetics

You can read those on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

>>3867221
IEP
SEP

>>3867221

I liked this one as an introduction to greek philosophy, not sure how everyone else thinks about it but I liked it.

>>3867221
Empirisme et subjectivité (1953). Trans. Empiricism and Subjectivity (1991).
Nietzsche et la philosophie (1962). Trans. Nietzsche and Philosophy (1983).
La philosophie critique de Kant (1963). Trans. Kant's Critical Philosophy (1983).
Nietzsche (1965). Trans. in Pure Immanence (2001).
Le Bergsonisme (1966). Trans. Bergsonism (1988).
Différence et répétition (1968). Trans. Difference and Repetition (1994).
Spinoza et le problème de l'expression (1968). Trans. Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza (1990).
Logique du sens (1969). Trans. The Logic of Sense (1990).
Spinoza - Philosophie pratique (1970, 2nd ed. 1981). Trans. Spinoza: Practical Philosophy (1988).

>>3870184
deleuze pls go

To be quite honest, most classic Philosophers are simply not worth reading. Unless you have an interest in tracing the historical lines of thought, don't bother. Philosophy has mostly become anemic through relentless intellectual inbreeding. Come to terms with the ideas you are interested in learning about, and pursue those ideas on their own terms. Not on the terms of academic philosophers, or worse, desperate and needy intellectuals who want to project a sense of mastery on complex subjects.

Look for modern philosophers (and scientists) whose work is in concert with science. Science is by far the superior method of acquiring knowledge. Philosophy that is in touch with science is what matters now.

>>3870208
ha ha ha, Marx's epistemic break. ALTHUSSER GET OUT, YOUR WIFE IS DEAD.

>>3870208

>Science is by far the superior method of acquiring knowledge.

Only an idiot would disregard the importance of scientific discovery, but empiricism is not the be all and end all of intellectual endeavor. You'd do well to lose this absolutist naivety.

Glad to know this board doesn't act like brainwashed retards when it comes to reddit.

>>3870208
Into the shitlist of tripfags he goes.

WHAT are you FUCKING KIDDING how DARE you bring reddit into our sphere you FUCKING DELUSIONAL FUCK i already HATE YOU

>>3867256
You probably want to start with the most well known texts, as other writers constantly build on them. Plato is easy to read, and pretty much the foundation of all later western philosophy. Science, Popper is essential. Language you'd be looking at Wittgenstein. Don't feel bad using reference works or summaries - when you find something you like, read the original text. I have Bertrand Russel's 'History of Western Philosophy', and the Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy, and they're both pretty handy.

Russel is great to start with - he's witty and writes well, but don't expect him to be objective (because he's not)

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D&feature=plcp

>>3870208
The tradition is necessary, it's were we start from, that which we must understand to understand ourself

>>3867221
Here ya go:

http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/

>>3870249
You would do well to increase your reading comprehension. The point you think I'm making, is not the point I actually made.

>>3870372
I do not believe that. Ignorance of the discipline is unforgivable if you want to make serious contributions. But for those who simply want to draw from it, not add to it, it's completely unnecessary.